Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLII: The Dice Make Fools of Us All

[Forum Explorer]

Why should they, the answer is obviously yes. Until the make strats say "is X away from starting point" or something, which would screw units that can't ignore terrain and be a flat out nerf.

That's what I expect the answer to be, but people argue about it anyways.

[LansXero]

That's what I expect the answer to be, but people argue about it anyways.

Do they? There is even a ruling explaining that if you pivot upon yourself you cost yourself movement (for non-circular things) isnt there? So you can just spin in place to make up the mov. requirements.

[Forum Explorer]

Do they? There is even a ruling explaining that if you pivot upon yourself you cost yourself movement (for non-circular things) isnt there? So you can just spin in place to make up the mov. requirements.

I remember hearing one argument that if your plane didn't end up more than 20 inches away from its starting spot, it didn't go far enough, even if its path was more than 20 inches. So yes, people will argue about anything not explicitly addressed.

[AdmiralCheez]

The 9th edition rulebook explicitly says that aircraft minimum movement must be that far from where it started, so I don't know how anyone could argue that unless we're talking about older editions.

[LansXero]

I remember hearing one argument that if your plane didn't end up more than 20 inches away from its starting spot, it didn't go far enough, even if its path was more than 20 inches. So yes, people will argue about anything not explicitly addressed.

You mean aircraft that explicitly can't pivot during movement and must move in a straight line, always? Was the one making the argument trying to cheat, or the one trying to circle with an airplane not on hover mode?

[Forum Explorer]

The 9th edition rulebook explicitly says that aircraft minimum movement must be that far from where it started, so I don't know how anyone could argue that unless we're talking about older editions.

The argument was in 8th. These days, you aren't destroyed if you fly off the board so it isn't as big of a deal.

You mean aircraft that explicitly can't pivot during movement and must move in a straight line, always? Was the one making the argument trying to cheat, or the one trying to circle with an airplane not on hover mode?

The argument was about Eldar flyers who can make one pivot during their movement to go in a kind of a L. They were saying that even if both sides of the L added up to 20 inches, your end point would be closer than 20 inches, and so you had to move further.

[LansXero]

The argument was about Eldar flyers who can make one pivot during their movement to go in a kind of a L. They were saying that even if both sides of the L added up to 20 inches, your end point would be closer than 20 inches, and so you had to move further.

Is that a FW model? Because Wings of Khaine is done after you move, you don't make an L move with regular Aeldari planes. You do get to turn 180° (90° at the end then 90° again before moving) so you never fly off the map unless you want to, but thats not the same.

Supersonic: Each time this model makes a Normal move, Advances or Falls Back, first pivot it on the spot up to 90° (this does not contribute to how far the model moves), then move the model straight forwards. It cannot pivot again after the initial pivot.

Wings of Khaine: When this model Advances, add 20" to its Move characteristic for that Movement phase instead of rolling a dice. Each time this model moves, first pivot it on the spot up to 90° (this does not contribute to how far the model moves), and then move the model straight forwards. Once its move has finished, you can pivot it a further 90° as before.

[Forum Explorer]

Is that a FW model? Because Wings of Khaine is done after you move, you don't make an L move with regular Aeldari planes. You do get to turn 180° (90° at the end then 90° again before moving) so you never fly off the map unless you want to, but thats not the same.

Nah, I just don't use Eldar flyers, so I've forgotten the rules. Now I'm really curious what the original argument actually was. I do remember it happening, but it was somewhere on Reddit and over a year ago so I'm pretty sure I'm never going to find it.

[Renegade Paladin]

I couldn't find a tutorial for magnetizing Bullgryns when I was doing that last weekend, so I prototyped and then made one.

[Wraith]

The 9th edition rulebook explicitly says that aircraft minimum movement must be that far from where it started, so I don't know how anyone could argue that unless we're talking about older editions.

The immediate critique that comes to mind for this is that most things in the game aren't aircraft so this rule doesn't apply to them, unless of course the rule explicitly says "all models including aircraft" or something.

It's nothing new. 40k players have been using the same logic - "the rules don't say that I CAN'T do it, so that must mean I can" - for years and it never gets any better.

[AdmiralCheez]

The immediate critique that comes to mind for this is that most things in the game aren't aircraft so this rule doesn't apply to them, unless of course the rule explicitly says "all models including aircraft" or something.

It's nothing new. 40k players have been using the same logic - "the rules don't say that I CAN'T do it, so that must mean I can" - for years and it never gets any better.

Were we not talking about aircraft? I thought that was the original model in question. If not, then that's an example on how the minimum movement rule works for them, so I would assume it would be similar for others.

[Cheesegear]

Were we not talking about aircraft?

We are talking about Jink, a rule applicable to many Dark Angel units - including Aircraft.

Models with Jink have a 5+ Invulnerable save. If they don't move, they lose it:
Can my models with Jink, move 6" in a circle, and end up in the position that they started in, for practical purposes, moving 0". But keep their Jink save, since they did move around in a circle? I know it doesn't appear that they did, but if I make motorbike go vroom noises, does that count?

If a Ravenwing model Advances, gain a 4+ Invulnerable save.
Can I say that my model Advances, then move 0"?
This is also important because Ravenwing units can Advance and Shoot. But maybe you don't want them to move away from somewhere tactically important (e.g; More than 9" away from table edge, allowing your opponent to deploy Reinforcements there, or, of course, off an Objective).

So you say you're Advancing, move 0", pick up your 4+ Invulnerable save vs. Ranged attacks, and get to stay where you are (e.g; On an Objective), and because you're Ravenwing you still get to shoot anyway.

[AdmiralCheez]

Now, I'm no expert on the rules, but I'd say allowing someone to "advance" zero inches, or "move" in a circle and end up in the same spot is in poor taste and against the spirit of the rule. I know it doesn't say you can't do that, but to me that's just bad form.

[Cheesegear]

Now, I'm no expert on the rules, but I'd say allowing someone to "advance" zero inches, or "move" in a circle and end up in the same spot is in poor taste and against the spirit of the rule.

As per exactly what Wraith said;
It doesn't say you can't, so you can.

[AdmiralCheez]

*sighs*

That's just... ugh... they really need to fix that.

[LansXero]

*sighs*

That's just... ugh... they really need to fix that.

Not at all. It is a perfectly fine interpretation of the rules. Same thing with 'moves over and does mortals' rules, you can just circle and return back to safety.

Want more salt? You have Jinx from the start of the game if you go second, because you haven't "not moved" yet as you haven't had a turn yet :D

[Wraith]

That's just... ugh... they really need to fix that.

It gets better; not all that long ago there was an edition that didn't specify what it meant for a model to be "killed".

If it lost all of it's wounds then it would be "slain or destroyed" which would allow you to score victory points, BUT if you used a certain ability to "remove the model from the game" without wounding it then it wasn't specifically "wounded" or "slain" so.... do you score points for it or not? It wasn't "slain" or "became a casualty", it was "removed from the game", which was fundamentally the same thing except for the name.

Then you'd get units like Guilliman who, if he was destroyed, could roll a dice to see if he'd remain in play. Not only did people argue that he could/could not do that when "removed from play" because the ability said "is destroyed" because they're semantically different, but also they argued about WHEN it would happen; if he HAD been destroyed, he got removed from play which meant his ability couldn't resolve because only models 'in play' could have an effect on the game. And if he was still in the game, then his ability couldn't trigger because he hadn't been "destroyed" yet either....

That one at least got patched, but otherwise? It gets very, very stupid and usually isn't worth the time or effort it takes to argue about. But we do, anyway.

[Cheesegear]

It gets very, very stupid and usually isn't worth the time or effort it takes to argue about. But we do, anyway.

Well, it is worth talking about, because it's little things like that that change how the game or a Faction is played.

Saying that Ravenwing get all of their benefits without actually having to move (practically), allows the existence of very powerful gunlines that are T5 with 3 Wounds, with a 4+ Invulnerable, and are Core. Meaning that Black Knights **** on Centurions and Aggressors.

Saying that a Dark Talon gains a 4+ Invulnerable save if it drops into Hover, and it doesn't even have to move (practically)?
That's pretty good, and absolutely changes how the model is used.

Rules matter. Discussing rules, matters.
Complaining about rules, is important. Because some people 'just don't see' the problem until you point it out to them. Case in point.
The more people that are aware of the problem, the more people that can (potentially) complain.
The more people complain, the more likely it is to be fixed.
(Insert real-world example that has nothing to do with toy soldiers)

But, knowing GW, the 'problem' wont be fixed until Dark Talon and Black Knight sales return to normal.
(i.e; After the 3-6 month new-release-buy-new-models window dries up)

[Forum Explorer]

*sighs*

That's just... ugh... they really need to fix that.

It really needs to be FAQ'd. I could see it working either way, I just want the argument to be settled, which they didn't.

[Squark]

Not at all. It is a perfectly fine interpretation of the rules. Same thing with 'moves over and does mortals' rules, you can just circle and return back to safety.

Want more salt? You have Jinx from the start of the game if you go second, because you haven't "not moved" yet as you haven't had a turn yet :D

The latter makes some sense- The bikes/speeders haven't just been sitting around, they've probably just gotten into that position after reconnaissance.

As for doing Doughnuts to keep your jink save... It doesn't "feel" right, but trying to fix it might break more things in the process.

[LansXero]

The latter makes some sense- The bikes/speeders haven't just been sitting around, they've probably just gotten into that position after reconnaissance.

As for doing Doughnuts to keep your jink save... It doesn't "feel" right, but trying to fix it might break more things in the process.

Jink is an actual thing, : "to move quickly or unexpectedly with sudden turns and shifts (as in dodging)". Nothing in it has to do with actually displacing yourself, you just zig then zag then shift yourself around and return to place and that makes the enemy shots miss. Or you rush into something, see its scary, nope out and all the while you've been shifting yourself to either side of the bike to keep your profile super low. Hell I've seen it done with motorized rickshaws, we have races of those here :v. Anyhow, the issue is that they get to advance+shoot without penalty; if they carried heavy weapons then advancing 'in place' is a trade-off with being able to shoot them, and shooting Assault weapons is a trade-off with the -1.

[Cheesegear]

Anyhow, the issue is that they get to advance+shoot without penalty; if they carried heavy weapons then advancing 'in place' is a trade-off with being able to shoot them, and shooting Assault weapons is a trade-off with the -1.

I don't know what you think you're saying, but to clarify:

Ravenwing Advance-and-Shoot with -1 to hit. The same penalty as if they had Assault weapons. During Devastator Doctrine.
When Ravenwing units Advance, they gain a 4+ Invulnerable vs. Ranged Attacks.

So, would you take the -1 to hit (knowing that negs to hit don't stack, so BS4 is the worst you're going to be), for a 4+ Invulnerable? On a unit with T5 and 3 Wounds?
Yes.

Would you take the -1 to hit, giving your Ravenwing Talonmaster a 4+ Invulnerable vs. Eradicators?
Yes.

It's not that Ravenwing Advance-and-Shoot without penalty:
They can Advance-and-Shoot with -1 to hit. With any weapon (e.g; Heavy and Rapid Fire weapons). During Devastator Doctrine (i.e; Turn 1, the best turn).
And they gain a 4+ Invulnerable when they Advance.

Dark Angels really want to go first, because they have a decent bonus on Turn 1 - as any Space Marine army does - but, if they go first, they actually have a legitimate real bonus vs. their opponent's Turn 1 Shooting phase (i.e; The 4+ Invulnerable).

Ravenwing are incredibly strong when they go first. On top of the usual benefits when they go first.

inb4; "First Turn Advantage isn't really an advantage."

[Fergie0044]

It really needs to be FAQ'd. I could see it working either way, I just want the argument to be settled, which they didn't.

I doubt they will anytime soon though. Because fixing this means making a ruling on what 'advancing' really means and giving some sort of measurable way of quantifying that. Sounds like a lot of work. I'd just chalk this up to janky rules - similar to how flamethrower type weapons are really good at hitting aircraft!

However, the core rules do state that "Any units ... (that) were not selected to move in the move units step of the movement phase are assumed to have remained stationary that phase". And if they remain stationary they don't get jink. So a player still have to declare that they are moving the bikes, even if they're, practically speaking, not.

[LansXero]

inb4; "First Turn Advantage isn't really an advantage."

Sorry, got to remember to not post right after waking up. My point is, this has just become an issue in 9E because "advance and get an inv." was already a thing in 8E, but it meant not shooting your heavy weapons AND taking an stackable BS hit to your assault weapons. So its not really the 'dont move' bit that made it broken, advancing in place has been a thing for years, its the extra stuff that made it seem too strong.

[Squark]

Jink is an actual thing, : "to move quickly or unexpectedly with sudden turns and shifts (as in dodging)". Nothing in it has to do with actually displacing yourself, you just zig then zag then shift yourself around and return to place and that makes the enemy shots miss.

Makes sense with hover vehicles, now that I think about it, but Motorbikes are not known for their lateral movement. Granted, they could be firing as they advance and then retreat, but that's not how shooting seems to be represented in 40k (Otherwise you'd be able to measure line of sight from any point during your move). Ultimately, though, the mechanic itself isn't a huge deal; The issue seems to be how overtuned Space Marines are at the moment.

[Renegade Paladin]

Want more salt? You have Jinx from the start of the game if you go second, because you haven't "not moved" yet as you haven't had a turn yet :D

Nope. Page 366 of the Core Book says that a model that has not yet had a Movement phase is said to have Remained Stationary under the definition of Remained Stationary. So Ravenwing that have not had a turn have Remained Stationary.

[LansXero]

Nope. Page 366 of the Core Book says that a model that has not yet had a Movement phase is said to have Remained Stationary under the definition of Remained Stationary. So Ravenwing that have not had a turn have Remained Stationary.

JINK
The Ravenwing are undisputed masters of mounted combat, and make for fast-moving targets that are difficult to draw a bead upon.

If this unit has the Grim Resolve Chapter Tactic, or it has the Inheritors of the Primarch Successor Tactic, and it is using the Chapter Tactic of the Dark Angels, then:
Models in this unit have a 5+ invulnerable save against ranged attacks. In your Movement phase, if this unit Remains Stationary, it loses this invulnerable save until the start of your next Movement phase.
Each time this unit Advances, until the start of your next turn, models in this unit have a 4+ invulnerable save against ranged attacks.

They always have a 5++. They only lose it if they dont move during their movement phase. Cant 'not move' if you havent had a turn yet, so cant lose it.

[Renegade Paladin]

Remained Stationary: If a unit Remains Stationary in its controller's Movement phase, or its controller has not yet had a Movement phase, then, until such a point as any model in that unit moves for any reason, it is said to have Remained Stationary.

[DataNinja]

Remained Stationary: If a unit Remains Stationary in its controller's Movement phase, or its controller has not yet had a Movement phase, then, until such a point as any model in that unit moves for any reason, it is said to have Remained Stationary.

The unfortunate problem is that, as written, the invuln is the default state. So, until you've had a phase to lose it in, the "do I lose this?" check won't happen. Which seems... unintended, but how the rules work.

[Blackhawk748]

It gets better; not all that long ago there was an edition that didn't specify what it meant for a model to be "killed".

If it lost all of it's wounds then it would be "slain or destroyed" which would allow you to score victory points, BUT if you used a certain ability to "remove the model from the game" without wounding it then it wasn't specifically "wounded" or "slain" so.... do you score points for it or not? It wasn't "slain" or "became a casualty", it was "removed from the game", which was fundamentally the same thing except for the name.

Then you'd get units like Guilliman who, if he was destroyed, could roll a dice to see if he'd remain in play. Not only did people argue that he could/could not do that when "removed from play" because the ability said "is destroyed" because they're semantically different, but also they argued about WHEN it would happen; if he HAD been destroyed, he got removed from play which meant his ability couldn't resolve because only models 'in play' could have an effect on the game. And if he was still in the game, then his ability couldn't trigger because he hadn't been "destroyed" yet either....

That one at least got patched, but otherwise? It gets very, very stupid and usually isn't worth the time or effort it takes to argue about. But we do, anyway.

It's an issue with how GW has always written their rules. What is a game term and what is descriptive flowery text? They aren't the best at differentiating them and often use multiple words to mean the same thing.

That's great in a story, but awful for rules as you want to be almost annoyingly pedantic when it comes to rules so you don't get odd glitches